Tenzing_Shaw

From a brief search, I can see that the situation has indeed changed somewhat since I lived in Japan (in the early 1990s). That is too bad. However I do not see any evidence that anti-Americanism is worse there than in, for example, most of Western Europe. Furthermore, the anti-Americanism is recent, and I would claim that it is merely a phenomenon that has been passively absorbed by the new generation. Therefore, I am not convinced that our actions in World War II (in which we fought with most of Western Europe and against Japan) have had any negative affect on the current situation. I would like to state that dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was morally right regardless of what the Japanese could have been expected to think about America decades later. In fact, however, one of the benefits of total war is convincing your enemies that their way of life is a failure and must be renounced.

I lived in Japan for years, and I saw absolutely none of this supposed "anti-American sentiment". In fact, everyone seemed very friendly toward me and my parents. I see more anti-American sentiment in the United States today than I did in Japan. It is possible that times have changed since then, but I had a Japanese friend much more recently, and he was far from anti-American. You are going to have to present some serious evidence for your claim. Total war is the only proper response to an actual attack on the United States (assuming the responsible government has been identified). In other situations, smaller campaigns could be more logical. One alternative would be the bombing of weapons facilities or the assasination of enemy leaders. However, there is absolutely no situation which would justify the altruistic campaign of suicide which is being carried out by the Bush administration. War is about victory (the swift accomplishment of well-defined goals), not about "compassion". I assume that you do not give credence to this view, however? Military action against China would be immoral, but not because it would violate any "rights" of the Chinese regime to "property". After all, that regime does not even recognize the property rights of its own citizens. Do you think that history is irrelevant? I was using it as an example to illustrate the concrete results of a moral principle, not as evidence for that principle. In this capacity, I think it is extremely useful. To answer your question, yes the rest of the world most certainly should be grateful for America's dedication to freedom. Do you believe that it is acceptable to resent the good (as many foreign anti-American propagandists do)? The proper response to the good is admiration in spirit, and support in action. Is this the reason that the United States should protect freedom? No, but I never implied that.

"Think of the children" is not a valid argument, and morality is not a question of body-counts. I think there are valid reasons for not using nuclear weapons against Iran yet, but your appeal to emotion is not one of them.

The only proper goal of a government in the realm of international relations is protecting its citizens at home and abroad. We certainly shouldn't take the feelings of other governments, allied or enemy, into account. In fact, it is precisely the cowardly policies of our government which earn us animosity. The more the United States plays "benevolant peace-keeper" around the world, the more everyone hates us. We fought total war against Japan in the 1940s, at the cost of many Japanese civilian lives, and there was little or no animosity afterwards. Our enemies need to understand that if we wage war against them, it will be total war, and not "just war". But we are speaking of nuclear weapons here, not trade restrictions. The situations are not remotely comparable. That said, a dictatorship is not legitimate, and doesn't have a right not to have our ships parked in its harbors. Why is this relevant? Also, almost any other government throughout history which enjoyed comparable military superiority to what the United States has today would mount aggressive invasions, and would be held in terror and awe by people everywhere. It is only because of America's commitment to freedom that this hasn't happened. There are other alternatives, however, besides appeasment and aggression. I agree. We need our threats to be backed by a strong moral position. Also, I believe that if people understood that America knows its own strength and means what it says, there would be a lot less anti-American sentiment in most of the world. People (rightly) admire proud, assertive individuals, not cowards who whine about how "compassionate" they are (such as our current leadership).

I agree with what K-Mac said. Also, I don't think any of our current enemies have significant nuclear arsenals. Should we wait until they do? Why should we cooperate with feeble totalitarian regimes whose only real weapon is our own guilt?

What we should do is simply use the threat of force as much as possible. If we aren't sure that Iran is building nuclear weapons, send in inspectors. This would have to be done without notice, with the understanding that any interference will be considered an act of war. Is there a suspicious sattelite photo? Send some helicopters down to investigate. At the same time, call the Iranian regime and inform it that it must allow the inspection. This way, there would be no way for the regime to move the weapons, and we would always be able to check the validity of surveillance photos. If the regime threatens to shoot down the helicopters, and complains about violations of it's "airspace", fly a large squadron of fighter planes over Tehran. If a United States President would state, unequivocally, that any belligerence toward us will be met with military force, our allies would grow rapidly, and our enemies would cower in fear lest they anger us. This state of affairs could probably be brought about bloodlessly, perhaps excepting a few small "examples". If dictator X hears that dictator Y didn't cooperate with America, and that his mansion was fire-bombed days later, dictator X will think twice about his own behavior. From what I have heard, this policy has been used intermittently by Israel, and has been very successful when it was followed.

You are correct that it wouldn't be proper to simply decide to use nuclear weapons, without warning, years after an attack. A much better tactic would be to issue an ultimatum to our enemies: if you are building weapons of mass destruction and we have proof, and you do not stop when commanded, then you will face nuclear retaliation. In that case, any resulting death would be the fault of the enemy government.

So, the concept would also refer to inanimate matter? If I understand you correctly, you are saying that an environment would be said to possess a natural balance if it is characterized mostly by long-term processes. In other words, would you say that natural balance refers to all those things in nature which prevent the state of the environment from changing rapidly with time? I think my confusion stems from not understanding what things would not fall under this concept. Does the sun, for example, have a natural balance? I would say that it does, since its state can be characterized by parameters which change very slowly. Then, is the purpose of the concept to differentiate such systems from those that change very rapidly with time, such as an exploding star? Juxtys: In case you don't know what a floating abstraction is, it is a concept which is not grounded in reality. In other words, if you took a floating abstraction and examined the more basic concepts on which it depends, you would never reach the level of direct observations of reality. Also, any concept, even a valid one, will be a floating abstraction in the mind of a person who does not grasp its connection to reality. Common examples of this would include: "energy" (as used by those involved in New Age religions), "freedom" (as used by most politicians today), and "sustainability" (as used by environmentalists). If you are confused about what I mean, you may wish to read the following entry in the Ayn Rand Lexicon: http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/conceptformation.html.

I am curious about the rational meaning of "natural balance". I would say that it refers to the negative feedback loops which occur commonly in nature, causing, for exampe, the stability of most natural populations. Would you agree with this? I am mainly curious about this because I think that many people, especially environmentalists, use this term and others like it as floating abstractions.

What you are speaking of is the concept of trade. Trade implies mutual benefit. In the case of inanimate matter, the concept of "benefit" is not even applicable. A rock faces no alternatives, so nothing can "benefit" it in any way. It simply is. In the case of plants or wild beasts, it is true that their are certain actions which will benefit their lives. However, non-rational creatures do not have concepts such as "money" or "fairness" or "price". Accordingly, such creatures cannot be dealt with by trade, but only by force. An objective value is a goal whose attainment serves to further man's life. Therefore, sustaining the lives of certain creatures may be a value, but only insofar as those creatures are a benefit to man's life by providing food, transportation, companionship, or some other function. Again, since beasts are not rational, no "payment" must be given in "return" for these functions. The only requirement is to take whatever actions are necessary to preserve the beast's ability to perform its function. You are anthropomorphizing nature again. There is no basis for that. This behavior has no moral significance; it just happens. As humans, we must seek to understand it, so that we may exploit nature to our benefit. The same is true for "biosphere balance" and "regenerative capabilities". Just as a nuclear reaction requires certain conditions to sustain it, so it is with things like trees or insects. We should not conclude that the reaction must be treated "fairly" in order to survive, nor should we conclude the same for living creatures. I understand the temptation to anthropomorphize the highest animals (such as cats). Nonetheless, I feed my cats instead of handing them pay-checks. It exists to humans. Animals do not have these concepts. This is a perfect example of the danger of theorizing about the dangers of technology without understanding how it works. Do you know any physics? Things that have been exposed to radiation do not become sources of radiation. To say that "something might" go wrong with a given technology, without any evidence, is arbitrary and unscientific.

That is a very unlikely scenario. If it did happen, the demand for communications would skyrocket, making it no longer profitable for companies to sell to the power-seeker. If the power-seeker used force at any point, the government would step in. A suggestion: If you really are serious about this discussion, I recommend that you try to improve the grammatical quality of your posts. If you did that, I think people might take you more seriously.

What is the "natural flow of Earth"? If you mean the laws of physics, then humans are subject to them too. The Earth does not have an ability to "clean" the atmosphere. Remember that the Earth does not have a mind; it simply obeys the laws of physics, which make no distinction between "clean" things and "dirty" things. In fact, the Earth itself has no regenerative capabilities. Only living organisms have regenerative capabilities. A planet is not a living organism, and therefore cannot do anything (in the sense of goal-directed action). How do you know that? One way to make absolutely certain that people won't be able to afford it would be to destroy the world economy with crippling environmental regulations. I wasn't speaking of genetic engineering of humans. Also, any technology, if improperly designed, may have a negative impact on our health; example: a faulty bridge. This fact does not invalidate the technology as such. What is the definition of "value"? As I see it, the essential problem here is your use of terms such as "natural flow", "biosphere balance", "regenerative capabilities", and "value". I know what "value" means, but I don't think we mean the same thing by it. As for the rest of these terms, you are going to have to define them very precisely before we can continue the discussion.

Ayn Rand most certainly does not need your forgiveness. If you disagree with her, I ask you to do so politely, showing the respect which is due to a thinker of her stature. In particular, I ask you not to refer to her condescendingly, or to insinuate that she was a "fool". First, since the Earth is not alive, it cannot be "killed". Second, what are the Earth's "regenerative capabilities"? Third, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Earth is becoming uninhabitable. Finally, even if the Earth does become uninhabitable for most life (for man-made reasons or otherwise), I have no doubt that humans will easily adapt through better technology and/or expansion into space. At that point, if we want plants and animals, we will simply genetically engineer them keep them indoors. If you think that undisturbed nature is a value, by all means head for the forest, but keep your hands off of my technology, my property, and my life.

If your point is simply that, then I don't disagree with you, except about the extent of the irrationality. Ayn Rand herself was often discouraged by the evil she saw around her. The real question is: what principles, if any, do you draw from this attitude? You implied earlier that this point causes you to have doubts about Objectivism. However, Objectivism does not hold that most or even many people are necessarily rational (only that rationality is possible and right). You seem to agree that the government should not attempt to regulate the ethical behavior of businesses. Where exactly do you depart from Objectivism, if you do?

Fair enough. I do understand that there are companies that act in this way, but I dispute two points in your analysis: 1. Such unethical behavior is common practice. I say again: look around you. When I do so myself, here is some of what I see: My wrist-watch has run for years, and still keeps time accurately to at least the nearest second. The computer I am typing on does not suddenly self-destruct. There was a big storm a few days ago, and the power lines outside of my window did not come crashing down. I take several medications, and most of them work spectacularly. I could continue this list indefinitely. The point is that, next to the achievments of productive individuals, phenomena such as financial dishonesty and engineering failure are rare and insignificant. 2. Such behavior can be gotten away with. If you believe this, I ask you again: what, in your opinion, is the purpose of morality? Why isn't it their responsibility? Since humans possess free will, you cannot use your observations of irrational people to draw conclusions about strangers. Neither respect nor dis-respect should be granted blindly. Either choice is arbitrary (a judgement not based on relevant facts). It isn't arbitrary if you know that the person is religious. It is arbitrary to use the fact that most people are religious to pronounce judgement on a stranger, or on mankind in general. Also, keep in mind that many people are rational in some areas of their lives and not in others. Thus, it may still be possible to gain great value from associating with a person who holds certain irrational ideas, as long as those ideas are not relevant to the nature of the interaction. How do you know that "a lot of them are"? My experience suggests the opposite. Your experience with irrational people does not free you from the responsibility of selfish action. Some people are indeed irrational. It is up to you to judge rigorously who is and who isn't, and to act accordingly. It is up to you to try to make others see reason when it is in your interest. It is up to you to reward the good and to refuse to sanction the evil. In essence, it is wrong to regard chosen human actions as metaphysically given (people are evil; oh well, who is John Galt?). Instead, you must confront irrationality in other people (in the context of your own life), as something which is not necessary to man, and which can be dealt with and defeated (if violence is not involved) through reason.

It is absolutely true. Do you believe that it is possible for a man to act in a consistently immoral manner and still succeed in life? If so, then I ask you: what, in your opinion, is the purpose of morality? Morality is not based on arbitrary "responsibilities" to others. On the contrary, morality is about long-term successful survival. As for lawsuits being an expense of business, why do you automatically conclude that this attitude is immoral? It is certainly true that companies should produce the best product they can with the resources they have available. Mistakes happen, however, and it is not the responsibility of a company to bankrupt itself by spending every spare penny on safety and quality control. If a company makes few mistakes and takes responsibility for the mistakes it does make (by paying law-suits), I do not see what the problem is. Now, it would be immoral for a company to ignore a serious defect it knew existed. I do not accept that companies do this as a matter of course. Look around you: how much of the technology you use every day works flawlessly, and how much randomly breaks and/or injures you? That is a very irrational assumption. I advise you to read about Gail Wynand from The Fountainhead or Dr. Stadler from Atlas Shrugged, and to examine exactly what affect this premise had on their lives. I am sorry that you think so. You seem to be a defender of individual rights, though. What do you think is the purpose of individual rights? You needn't have "faith" in anyone. In fact, your position amounts to having faith in evil, by arbitrarily assuming that those you meet are irrational. You seem to believe that businessmen are predominantly unscrupulous predators. I suggest you view the lecture which I linked to in my last post, keeping in mind that John Allison is chairman of a multi-billion dollar bank.

Yes, this is the fundamental point: a concept is not interchangeable with its definition. A concept is a mental entity which refers to a set of things in reality (including things which have existed or will exist). A definition is an identification of the defining characteristic of the things subsumed by the concept. Thus, the concept "coin" means all the coins which you have ever encountered or will ever encounter. It does not mean "a small metallic disk with inscriptions which is used as a means of exchange". A concept can exist without a definition; the purpose of a definition is to make the concept exact by keeping its referents separate from the referents of other concepts.

And capitalism is somehow to blame for this? Since you are assuming that the police should but won't act properly here, would this not be the fault of the govenment? First of all, you cannot somehow cause unjust behavior to disappear by granting extra powers to the government. Your claim seems to be that the government should force the truck driver to pay for damages. If so, how does this example have anything to do with capitalism? But unethical behavior never "behooves" anyone, and those who "cut corners" will suffer under the free market due to loss of reputation, loss of trust, loss of money from lawsuits, and loss of self-esteem. If a businessman wishes to cheat his customers, nothing the government can do will stop him. Conversely, if the businessman is honest, nothing the government can do will make him more honest. For an eloquent argument concerning the practicality of ethical behavior in business, I highly recommend the following speech by BB&T chairman John Allison: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDAn51D_YxY. You claim that you lack faith in people, and you use this to justify government regulation. You forget that the government is merely a collection of these so-called "ignorant, barbaric cattle" whom you profess to distrust. Not only that, but government employees lack even the incentive to be honest which exists in the free market. The whole line of reasoning about most people being untrustworthy is simply a double-standard.

Before reading Atlas Shrugged, I held very contradictory views. I was a far-leftist in politics, but believed in individualism where my own life was concerned. I somehow failed to see the irrationality of my views until Ayn Rand helped me come to my senses. In fact, I sometimes have trouble even remembering exactly what I believed before becoming an Objectivist (except in a general sense). I think this is because my ideas were very chaotic at the time, and were therefore difficult to retain in my memory in the long run. I wonder if anyone else has had a similar experience?

Certainly. First, I would like to say that I think this man's evil runs deeper than marxism (although he is guilty of that, as Tenure writes). Hatred of man Here is a man who hates his own nature as a human. He goes as far as to compare mankind to "chicken pox" and "yeast". He subsists (as you point out) as a parasite off of the achievment of others. Parasitism Prieur knows he is a parasite, and he is counting on those he feeds off of: This man makes explicit the looter's premise which Ayn Rand revealed in Atlas Shrugged. Hatred of the achievments of others Widespread and deliberate evasion of reality Hatred of the purposeful life Result of his ideas on his own life On a personal level, I am also deeply offended by his essay "Science the destroyer", which happens to be an attack on some of my highest values. As a final judgement on this man's character, I will quote Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged: In my opinion, this man is morally worse than most murderers. In essence, he wants to die and he hates the fact that others want to live. As for me, I love science, industrial civilization, wealth, and goal-directed action. When that awful creature finally achieves the death he is working toward, I hope that his corpse rots in the shadow of a glittering skyscraper. Whether one is competent at making burgers or inventing world-changing technologies is not the issue. One can be perfectly moral doing the former. The issue is Prieur's repudiation of all the fundamental virtues, especially of productivity, and pride. Excellent! My advice: forget about that monster and read more about Objectivism.

After looking more carefully at the website you linked to, I believe my previous response was too mild. That man is profoundly evil. If you can truly relate to him in any way, I strongly suggest that you give some hard thought to whether his ideas are good for your life.

Regarding the author of "How to Drop Out", I think a retort I once heard attributed to Yaron Brook is appropriate: "Get a life! Get a mind!"

I didn't see your post before I made mine, so I just wanted to address this example specifically. Imagine if you discovered that Peikoff has dark hair, and then made no evaluation of that fact. In other words, you make no attempt to discover its relation to your own life. You will be reduced to mindlessly proclaiming "Peikoff has dark hair... true", and then going on to discover other trivial facts. Every is implies an ought. Is: Peikoff has dark hair, ought: irrelevant to my life, so do nothing. Without the second part, you will be at a loss: you will be overwhelmed by thousands of truths, all of which are equally true, but of which only a few are important to your life. Every day, we constantly make the choice not to act in the face of millions of trivial bits of information (of course, this choice becomes automatic). We are, however, constantly on the alert for facts that do have a bearing on our lives. If we don't evaluate the trivial facts (automatically), how are we to know that they are trivial, as opposed to matters of life and death?

First, I would like to note that I was using "evaluation" in the same context as it is used in Fact and Value; to denote the determination of value. Your claim that evaluation depends on cognition is true in a sense. If I am being chased by an enemy, and see a sword lying on the ground, my verdict as to whether the sword is good for my life (evaluation) will depend on whether its blade is sharp or dull in reality (cognition). In a different sense, I may have already reached the verdict that the sword is good for my life only if it is sharp (evaluation), before actually examining its edge (cognition). In effect, I have performed a conditional evaluation on the sword; conditional on my cognition of it. I think the potential mistake here is adoptiong a view of man as an entity that goes around collecting facts randomly, determining the truth of those fact, and only then deciding their relevance to his life. So if you meant that, given a specific idea, one cannot evaluate it without determining its truth, I would agree with you. One should not forget, however, that man (in order to live) must constantly search out those particular facts which will help him to achieve his goals, and that cognition depends on evaluation in that sense. I will give a final example: an inventor will typically begin with a goal, which he evaluates as "good for man's life", and will only then proceed to design the device to meet that goal (cognition). The opposite path is also possible, but certainly not necessary. The evaluation of a fact as irrelevant is still an evaluation. The point is that some verdict has to be reached about the value of a fact, or else man has no way to live. Notice that a man who did not evaluate irrelevant facts would spend his life counting ceiling tiles. In fact, just try for a moment to discover a fact without deciding whether it is good for, bad for, or irrelevant to your life. Such a thing would require a conscious act of evasion. In regard ideas, truth emphatically does not have primacy over value to life (and vice versa). The two are inseparable and they stand and fall together. The point of my sword example is that the essence of intrinsicism is giving primacy to cognition over evaluation. Properly, cognition and evaluation always go together, and one without the other is useless as a guide to action. As a further example, I will give three trains of thought below, illustrating the difference between subjectivism, intrinsicism, and Objectivism (thoughts in parentheses). Intrinsicism: Dog barking in the distance (true), sound of horn (true), truck heading toward him (true)... intrinsicist dies. Subjectivism: Dog barking in the distance (bad), sound of horn (irrelevant), truck heading toward him (good)... subjectivist dies. Objectivism: Dog barking in the distance (true, irrelevant), sound of horn (true, irrelevant), truck heading toward him (true, bad for my life)... leaps out of the way and survives. To conclude, the essence of your argument now appears to be that evaluation is entirely dependent on cognition, and therefore has precedence over it, which is intrinsicism. From your comments in that discussion, you seemed to be claiming that a man can hold false ideas and still consistently take actions (based on those ideas) which benefit his life, and that is subjectivism.

On this issue, I completely agree with the following (bold mine):